Hunter Biden’s use of classified documents
The more we learn, the worse it gets. Now we ae supposed to believe that drug addled Hunter who had never been to Ukraine emerged from his stupor just long enough to demonstrate his expertise on the strategic situation in Eastern Europe.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
A pattern is starting to emerge in which government classified documents are routinely accessible to the ruling class.
LikeLike
So, Tucker Carlson floats one of his slanders – you know, what Fox News lawyers say no reasonable person would believe – and you can’t wait to spread it along with slanders of your own. Typical.
And what is the problem? A well-researched position paper which you say a Hunter could not possibly have produced because he was in a stupor. Well, in 2014, Hunter Biden was not “drug addled.” His slide into the depths of addiction occurred later after his brother passed away.
Is there ANY evidence that ANY of what was in that paper was classified and not available to anyone doing their homework? Uh, no. But baseless speculation is good enough for lying liars.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “Well, in 2014, Hunter Biden was not ‘drug addled.'”
Per Town Hall: “Just two months before he [Hunter] wrote this, two months, in February of 2014, he’d been thrown out of the Navy for cocaine use,” Carlson noted. “He couldn’t even stay sober long enough to pass a scheduled drug test. He was completely out of control. “
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, I read that. He was at that time a cocaine USER like MANY other people. Cocaine use stimulates energy and creativity – in the short run – the opposite of being in a “stupor.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Cocaine is beneficial. Got it.
LikeLike
“Cocaine is beneficial. Got it.”
How stupid are you?
I did not claim that cocaine was “beneficial.”
I cited some of its effects and referred to the short run.
“Cocaine causes a euphoric sensation that for many users is hard to resist. The sensations that come from cocaine use include a boost of energy, a sense of heightened awareness, and as some report, the ability to perform tasks quickly and effectively.”
That IS the opposite of being in a “stupor.”
https://nsightrecovery.com/positive-negative-effects-of-cocaine/
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “That IS the opposite of being in a ‘stupor.'”
Doesn’t matter. Getting fired from a job for drug use is a common sign of severe addiction.
LikeLike
“Getting fired from a job for drug use is a common sign of severe addiction.”
One bad piss test for THC and you can lose a job. That is NOT a sign of severe addiction.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “That is NOT a sign of severe addiction.”
No, but failing a drug test for cocaine use when you knew it was going to happen definitely is.
LikeLike
Not necessarily.
LikeLike
You’re speculating again. And being led around by the MAGA ring in your nose by Carlson and NY Post.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why do you waste time attacking Dr. Tabor? If there is something in the source you wish to refute, do that, instead.
LikeLike
“Why do you waste time attacking Dr. Tabor? If there is something in the source you wish to refute, do that, instead.”
You do not get a pass when you bring in lies, distortions and baseless slanders from scurrilous sources. Sharing lies is a form of lying. And, in this case, Hunter Biden being in a “stupor” was an embellishment on Carlson’s slanders that Dr. Tabor chose to pull out of his ass.
Besides all that, it is funny when one of you people choose to spread ANYTHING that Tucker Carlson says. We already believe that you are not too bright nor discerning in your source material and every such parroting of Tucker is good for a laugh at your expense.
LikeLiked by 2 people
BTW, the source is Miranda Devine, Carleson is just reporting on her research.
LikeLike
“Miranda Devine . . .”
Yes, I noticed. The New York Post still milking their Hunter Biden “scoop.” Just another trooper in the Rupert Murdoch assault on democracy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ad Hominem yet again, Where is she in error?
LikeLike
“Ad Hominem yet again, Where is she in error?”
You still do not understand the ad hominem fallacy. There are no facts in the story to refute by attacking the author.
She assumes facts not in evidence. Carlson goes even further. The main assumption is that Hunter Biden, a graduate of Yale Law school, cannot write an inciteful paper. Instead, she, you and Carlson just smear him with the mental health issues he experienced some years later.
Further, she alleges that classified material was purloined based on NOTHING. She cannot even name a single point made in the email that is classified.
What evidence do YOU have to support your claim that Hunter was in a “stupor” in 2014? Or is the idea of supporting ugly personal attacks with evidence completely alien to you? Your “logic” is laughable. Hunter had never been to Ukraine (a fact you made up as far as I can tell) so how could he know anything about Ukraine? Really? Never heard of books, the internet, phones, friends, research assistants, etc.?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Or State Dept briefing papers
LikeLike
“Or State Dept briefing papers.”
Or Google, Wikipedia, NYT, WSJ, Bloomberg, BBC, ….
That’s what the world outside of ZeroHedge and its cohorts looks like. Not QAnon.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Where is she in error”
In her lack of ability in ACTUALLY connecting the dots.
It is SPECULATION, which we all know you LOVE. Unless that speculation calls into question things you don’t believe in. Like the Trump Family corruption. ($1.6M fine for it in NY.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “You do not get a pass when you bring in lies, distortions and baseless slanders from scurrilous sources.”
Brave words, but useless. A wise monkey may claim that ignorance is wisdom, but it doesn’t make it so.
LikeLike
And you claim that all of YOUR sources are legitimate, trustworthy, and without reproach. And they get called out for being the fertilizer spreading that they are.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “And you claim that all of YOUR sources are legitimate, trustworthy, and without reproach.”
No, I don’t. I have never claimed that any of my sources are more than interesting enough to comment on.
LikeLike
Where is it wrong?
LikeLike
Where did I say it was “wrong”? It is SPECULATION.
I know you live in a speculative world when it comes to the Democratic Party and anyone adjacent to it. Connecting dots that may or may not be there to come to the conclusion YOU desire. But speculation can cost YOU money if you aren’t good at it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“A wise monkey . . .”
Why don’t you people grow up?
Tucker Carlson is a jackass and only a fellow jackass would spread his jackassery. In this case, someone found a well-written position paper on Hunter Biden’s laptop. And the quality of the work is the ONLY basis for the claim of “corruption” and getting rich off of classified materials.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “Tucker Carlson is a jackass and only a fellow jackass would spread his jackassery.”
Nobody cares about your opinion of Tucker Clarlson.
LikeLike
It isn’t just an opinion. Tucker Carlson’s lawyers argued that no one should believe him in defamation suits filed against him and Fox.
LikeLike
Uh, I do. Not only do I agree, but so did Carlson himself, on the record too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Had you read the story, you would have known that Carleson is not the original source.
LikeLike
“Had you read the story, you would have known that Carleson is not the original source”
I did read the story, saw that it was bullshit without any evidence, and I did see that Tucker was channeling the New York Post. I stand by my original comment about jackasses and jackassery.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I did attack the source because it is speculative in nature. Dr. Tabor shred it, so by extension, he gets called out for it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “I did attack the source because it is speculative in nature.”
Your mistake was in failing to show why you consider it speculative. Do you expect to be taken seriously just because you have an unfounded opinion? Do your opinions justify your baseless attacks on other posters?
LikeLike
“Your mistake was in failing to show why you consider it speculative”
This is a common problem for you – failure to see the obvious. It was speculative because it contained no evidence. Just speculation. Duh!
LikeLiked by 2 people
A common problem for you is disparaging sources you have not read.
Carleson was not the source, Miranda Devine was. She has deeply researched the laptop story.
It is not only that Hunter was so addled with drug and alcohol addiction that he was not competent to express himself. it was that the detail and organization of the email displayed an expert depth of knowledge of Ukraine that he could not have had.
Remember that at the time he had never been there, had no prior business there and could not speak the language,
The organization and depth of the email was characteristic of State Dept briefing papers.
That Hunter Biden could have produced such a document on his own is what is specualtive, at best.
LikeLike
” She has deeply researched the laptop story.”
Then she is a crappy researcher who is trying to come to a predetermined outcome. “This is how I want this to end, so I will take 2 + 2, say it equals 6, because that is what I want the end to be.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Do you have evidence of bad journalism on Ms Devine’s part or do you just not want to believe her?
LikeLike
“It is not only that Hunter was so addled with drug and alcohol addiction that he was not competent to express himself.”
You know this how? You met with him at the time and can honestly say that he was that addled?
SPECULATION, like hypocrisy is YOUR go to.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“That Hunter Biden could have produced such a document on his own is what is specualtive, at best.”
So is the idea that he couldn’t.
LikeLiked by 2 people
not really.
Ms Devine has read every email on the laptop. If she sees this one as unlike any other, that is evidence of plagiarism at best.
The real problem is where it was plagiarized from.
LikeLike
Is that the same laptop that the FBI didn’t have?
LikeLike
“A common problem for you is disparaging sources you have not read.”
I had read every word of the story and critiqued it fairly and accurately. It is PURE speculation as any objective reader would have recognized immediately. But not you. It fits too well with the pre-conceived narrative you carry around.
You have absolutely no knowledge of Hunter Biden’s abilities. Neither you nor Tucker nor the NYP hit woman provided ANY evidence that ANY part of that email was classified. Your ONLY “evidence” was that it was a well prepared piece. Hunter Biden is a graduate of Yale Law School. That fact alone says that a well-organized position paper is something within his skill set.
LikeLiked by 2 people
What ACTUAL facts are in the story? Even the lede is about connecting dots. Opinions such as those in the source article are not factual. Or if they are they are, they are not related enough to CONCLUDE, without evidence, that it is true.
LikeLike
RE: “What ACTUAL facts are in the story?”
The Townhall story begins with a factual statement: “In the trove of emails on Hunter Biden’s laptop, one stood out to Miranda Devine of the New York Post. It was a long and well-informed email about Ukraine, Russia, and the United Kingdom and was unlike any other he had sent.”
There are others, such as Hunter Biden being kicked out of the Navy for drug use at roughly the time he wrote the email.
It is also true that Hunter appears to have plagarized some other document. But it is kind of silly to claim that a “true appearance” is merely speculation.
LikeLike
Just because you don’t like or agree with my opinions, which are actually based in facts that you ignore because you don’t like them, is no reason to question why it is speculative.
And it IS speculative. 2+2=5 in your wourld.
LikeLike
I will wait until at least a few more media outlets other than the right wing echo chamber pick up the story. I read the email as posted on Twitter by Devine. I saw nothing that wasn’t common or at least public knowledge along with some predictions. Using Uk, RU or other initials is really not a smoking gun, that is just silly speculation. But it sells ads at Gateway and friends.
Unfortunately, family members trading on rich, powerful and connected parents is all too common. (In some cases, whole families are involved, but I digress.)
The question is whether Joe Biden was involved with or just used by his son.
I think that no matter how this shakes out, we as citizens need to seriously consider the power and role of the president and that, in my opinion, has gotten way out of kilter. The canary is the recent revelations about classified documents popping up from past top executives in the administration. But the proliferation of Executive Orders is really bad. The Congress is supposed to legislate and the president is supposed to carry out the laws. Yes, the president has CinC powers of the military, is supposed to handle foreign policy and can veto. Those do not make make him a political god. Yet, we are almost there.
LikeLiked by 1 person
How it is going to shake out is that the Big Guy provided Hunter with State Dept documents, possibly classified, but even if not, unavailable to others seeking the same job.
The very least is that the Big Guy used government resources to boost his son, and from the nature of the information, it likely came from classidied material.
LikeLike
You know this already? Better tell NYPost.
If that would be the case, then Biden is in trouble, politically and legally, depending on the details. However, you are assuming the President knew about what Hunter might have done. Which is why the documents were found later rather than sooner. If Joe Biden had shown them to Hunter, no reason to keep them at home. Either way, if the documents are material evidence, it is bad. But if Joe knew nothing, which to me is more likely, then it is another kettle of trout.
Maybe then we can also get a handle on Kushner and the Saudis as investigations into familial corruption spread. That’s a billion dollar question.
Funny. Obama, whom you hated viscerally, may have been the most honest president we have had since Ford. I know, he smirked and was uppity, but, hey…
LikeLiked by 2 people
It should be easy to prove, simply search State Dept documents for matching text.
I’m sure the Biden DOJ is already diligently working on that. /sarc
LikeLike
Well, like I said, news at 11. Despite your blind spot on real media, if there is a scandal, it will out. WAPO, NYT, CNN have not gone easy on Biden lately. You would not know this from your vantage point, but it is true.
Biden may have a DOJ, but it is obviously not “his” as in the Trumpian definition. Garland has worked hard to keep the traditional separation that was destroyed by the previous president. He has given Trump every break, but put Biden on watch regarding documents.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“I’m sure the Biden DOJ “…
There is no such animal. DOJ is an independent part of the Executive Branch. Now Trump’s DOJ, which actually WAS attempted to be weaponized to go after political rivals is a different story. Also one that mischaracterized the Mueller Report prior to its release. One you refuse to believe.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“. . . from the nature of the information, it likely came from classified material.”
There is nothing in the email that is classified. So you just pulled that smear out of your ass as is your wont.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Because you say so?
How do you know the information is not a portion of a classified briefing document, considering it was from shortly before the Big Guy went to Ukraine.
LikeLike
“How do you know the information is not a portion of a classified briefing document”
You are the one saying it is with ZERO evidence and ZERO classified information in the email itself. Like I said, another smear you have pulled out of your ass. As you and your ilk are wont to do.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Attached is a readable version of the email in question. The characterization of this email reading like a classified document or a State Department briefing is ridiculous. It is a rambling chain of consciousness kind of piece and contains nothing remotely classified and nothing that you would not find in any number of journals following politics, international affairs and the gas business.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FnLgcMQXEBQQzrV?format=jpg&name=900×900
LikeLiked by 2 people
The readable version definitely looks less like direct plagiarism.
LikeLike
Maybe it was plagerized by the NYP “reporter”.
Sports and fish wrapping.
LikeLiked by 1 person